From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, martin.petersen@oracle.com, jdorminy@redhat.com,
bjohnsto@redhat.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
dm-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2] block: use gcd() to fix chunk_sectors limit stacking
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 21:03:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201204020343.GA32150@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201204011243.GB661914@T590>
On Thu, Dec 03 2020 at 8:12pm -0500,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:33:59AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02 2020 at 10:26pm -0500,
> > Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:07:09AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > commit 22ada802ede8 ("block: use lcm_not_zero() when stacking
> > > > chunk_sectors") broke chunk_sectors limit stacking. chunk_sectors must
> > > > reflect the most limited of all devices in the IO stack.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise malformed IO may result. E.g.: prior to this fix,
> > > > ->chunk_sectors = lcm_not_zero(8, 128) would result in
> > > > blk_max_size_offset() splitting IO at 128 sectors rather than the
> > > > required more restrictive 8 sectors.
> > >
> > > What is the user-visible result of splitting IO at 128 sectors?
> >
> > The VDO dm target fails because it requires IO it receives to be split
> > as it advertised (8 sectors).
>
> OK, looks VDO's chunk_sector limit is one hard constraint, even though it
> is one DM device, so I guess you are talking about DM over VDO?
>
> Another reason should be that VDO doesn't use blk_queue_split(), otherwise it
> won't be a trouble, right?
>
> Frankly speaking, if the stacking driver/device has its own hard queue limit
> like normal hardware drive, the driver should be responsible for the splitting.
DM core does the splitting for VDO (just like any other DM target).
In 5.9 I updated DM to use chunk_sectors, use blk_stack_limits()
stacking of it, and also use blk_max_size_offset().
But all that block core code has shown itself to be too rigid for DM. I
tried to force the issue by stacking DM targets' ti->max_io_len with
chunk_sectors. But really I'd need to be able to pass in the per-target
max_io_len to blk_max_size_offset() to salvage using it.
Stacking chunk_sectors seems ill-conceived. One size-fits-all splitting
is too rigid.
> > > I understand it isn't related with correctness, because the underlying
> > > queue can split by its own chunk_sectors limit further. So is the issue
> > > too many further-splitting on queue with chunk_sectors 8? then CPU
> > > utilization is increased? Or other issue?
> >
> > No, this is all about correctness.
> >
> > Seems you're confining the definition of the possible stacking so that
> > the top-level device isn't allowed to have its own hard requirements on
>
> I just don't know this story, thanks for your clarification.
>
> As I mentioned above, if the stacking driver has its own hard queue
> limit, it should be the driver's responsibility to respect it via
> blk_queue_split() or whatever.
Again, DM does its own splitting... that aspect of it isn't an issue.
The problem is the basis for splitting cannot be the stacked up
chunk_sectors.
Mike
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-04 2:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-30 17:18 [dm-devel] [PATCH] block: revert to using min_not_zero() when stacking chunk_sectors Mike Snitzer
2020-11-30 20:51 ` John Dorminy
2020-11-30 23:24 ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-12-01 0:21 ` John Dorminy
2020-12-01 2:12 ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-01 16:07 ` [dm-devel] [PATCH v2] block: use gcd() to fix chunk_sectors limit stacking Mike Snitzer
2020-12-01 17:43 ` John Dorminy
2020-12-01 17:53 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-01 18:02 ` Martin K. Petersen
2020-12-02 3:38 ` [dm-devel] [PATCH] dm: " Jeffle Xu
2020-12-02 3:38 ` Jeffle Xu
2020-12-02 3:57 ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02 5:03 ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-12-02 5:14 ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-02 6:31 ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02 6:35 ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02 6:28 ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02 7:10 ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02 15:11 ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-03 1:48 ` JeffleXu
2020-12-03 3:26 ` [dm-devel] [PATCH v2] block: " Ming Lei
2020-12-03 14:33 ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-03 16:27 ` Keith Busch
2020-12-03 17:56 ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04 1:45 ` Ming Lei
2020-12-04 2:11 ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04 6:22 ` Damien Le Moal
2020-12-04 1:12 ` Ming Lei
2020-12-04 2:03 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2020-12-04 3:59 ` Ming Lei
2020-12-04 16:47 ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04 17:32 ` [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH] dm: fix IO splitting [was: Re: [PATCH v2] block: use gcd() to fix chunk_sectors limit stacking] Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04 17:49 ` Mike Snitzer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201204020343.GA32150@redhat.com \
--to=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bjohnsto@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=jdorminy@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).